Posted on

The Shadow of 9/11 Falls On Syria

www.newmatilda.com/2013/09/11/shadow-911-falls-syria

Published on New Matilda, 11 Sept 2013

“We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom.”

With this prayer, US President George W. Bush vowed revenge [6] against Al Qaeda soon after the World Trade Centre attacks of 11 September 2001. “We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest,” he said. “And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

In his speech today on the eve of the September 11 anniversary, Obama was at pains to distance himself from Al Qaeda.

But his description of the Syrian government as “the forces of tyranny and extremism” could have been his predecessor’s description of Al Qaeda 12 years ago.

Obama declared that “Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing”. He will ask Congress to postpone a vote authorising violence, saying “it is beyond our means to right every wrong … America is not the world’s policeman.” However, a “pinprick strike” could compound the chaos and embolden Al Qaeda who would welcome “allies” firing from the sky. He fails to urge “those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos” of the beheadings of his fellow Christians in Syria, now an endangered species, and the demolition of sacred churches that mark the history of Christianity.

The US will give time and space for a Russian-led diplomatic solution to the issue of chemical weapons. Despite Obama’s claims that “my administration tried diplomacy …and negotiations”, he fails to cite a single example, siding instead with the rhetoric of the rebels that we will never negotiate with a dictator.

But is Obama, like Bush, really trying to “starve” the terrorists, who presumably feed on chaos? Many would prefer to forget about Bush’s statements given the ironic alliances made by the US. Earlier this year, Obama pledged $250 million of “non-lethal aid” to the Free Syrian Army, a default ally of terrorist armies in “the opposition” affiliated with Al Qaeda. Contrary to Obama’s repeated claims, this is far from a “civil war”.

One opposition group, the Al Qaeda-linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, was accused of assassinating a Free Syrian Army commander in July. The “Islamic Front” has vowed to impose Sharia law in Syria [10]. “Jabhat al Nusra” has vowed allegiance to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Given the war logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, intelligence and arms are shared and flow freely among these allies. This means that US aid may have easily fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of President Bush, still invoked as a reason that intervention in Syria is called for. Why didn’t the US align with the Syrian government years ago in the face of a common enemy: the Wahabi Jihadist ideolology.

Obama’s rhetoric today marks a significant change to Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement at the G20: “This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter… Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

If the US has principles to uphold, but also recognises it can’t militarily police the whole world, then some interesting questions arise: Kerry alleges that his “significant body of open source intelligence” revealed that “for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.” Why wasn’t the information used to intervene then, or to warn Syrian civilians and prevent over 1400 fatalities? Why was such intelligence not immediately given to the UN weapons inspection team who were on the ground exactly three days before the war crime?

Moreover, if the US leaders are “serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use”, where was their “international obligation” when over 1400 Gazans were killed under Operation Cast Lead in January 2009? Obama did not draw an unequivocal red line that “we will not tolerate their use” against “our ally Israel” because it has his “unshakeable support”. According to Amnesty International, Israel “indiscriminately fired white phosphorous over densely populated residential areas.” These unlawful US-imported chemical weapons burn flesh to the bone. Nonetheless US leaders were content to remain spectators to that particular slaughter.

Whether in Gaza or Ghouta, this selective concern makes a cruel mockery of the principles espoused after the World Trade Centre attacks.

Twelve years on, Bush’s prayer, “God grant us wisdom”, has been challenged by Pope Francis. While Obama was still insisting that a “limited” attack on Syria was “the right thing to do”, Pope Francis said that “never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake … war begets war.”

What an irony! While President Obama in St Petersburg was making the moral case for a military solution in Syria, Pope Francis in St Peter’s Square called for a “day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria” last Saturday. The Pope’s call was heeded and echoed by leaders of many faiths, believing that God alone grants them wisdom.

The last papal day of prayer was declared by Pope John Paul II in the wake of the World Trade Centre attacks 12 years ago. He invited religious leaders to Assisi to pray for “true peace … religion must never become a cause of conflict, hatred and violence.”

Posted on

Don’t turn your back on refugees

http://bit.ly/12WOdkU

Don’t turn your back on refugees
Herald Sun
18 July 2013

“AUSTRALIANS are essentially a warm-hearted, kind people who want to have the continuation of an orderly migration system.”

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s recent attempt to focus these two lenses of the Australian binoculars on boat people was missing the third lens: a global perspective.

When asked if we could be “more compassionate to the refugees” at a community cabinet meeting in Rockhampton, Rudd should have known that compassion requires a lens from the outside looking in, not the reverse.

On the other side of the world where I was born, my 4 million Lebanese compatriots have accommodated more than 1 million Syrian refugees, and counting.

Ironically, even the 500,000 Palestinians in South Lebanon refugee camps have opened their tents to the Syrian families. To reject fellow humans at their doorstep was deemed unthinkable and heartless.

This lack of perspective was confirmed by World Vision Australia’s Tim Costello, who recently returned from refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, where he met many host families, who explained: “I tell my children we are still lucky we must accept them.”

When comparing the Middle Eastern perspective with Australia, he concluded that “we are thinking in stats and categories, not looking into faces”.

According to Lebanese UN ambassador Nawaf Salam, “Lebanon will not close its borders. It will not turn back any refugees”, even though one in five residents in this war-scarred country is a Syrian refugee.

In contrast, only about one in 200 residents in our land of plenty is a refugee.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees website provides further factual perspective, with 15.4 million refugees seeking a home in 2012, of which only 16,000 were in Australia.

Lebanon and our island nation are geographically and historically incomparable. Many may also argue that Syria and Lebanon share a border, a language and a culture.

This is akin to arguing that New Zealand shares the same affinity with Australia because of our shared language, Tasman Sea and British colonial history. Would Australia have taken a million Kiwis if they were rendered refugees due to war, earthquakes or global warming?
Would rejecting them be unthinkable and heartless? Are our refugee binoculars fitted with a cultural lens?

Our true colours are exposed if we see our trans-Tasman neighbours as “different to other refugees because they are the same as us”. They do not count as stats because we see their faces. Yet, ironically, neither of our “mongrel nations” are monocultural or monolingual.

Hence, it is peculiar that Rudd would be “looking at this right now globally in terms of the effectiveness of the Refugees Convention”, as Article 3 stipulates that the provisions shall apply “without discrimination as to race, religion, or country of origin”.

The 1951 Convention, which was initially a response to World War II on the European continent before the 1967 Universal Protocol, makes no reference to refugee applicants by sea or air.

So long as the applicant is “outside the country of his nationality” and has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted”, the refugee definition applies.

If Rudd intends to capitalise on Australia’s seat at the United Nations Security Council, perhaps he should take a more global rather than Australia-centric perspective.

He may propose to redefine Australian territory to exclude the sea, or redefine refugees to exclude seaborne asylum seekers, secondary points of origin (Article 31) and voyages arranged by people smugglers.

But such proposals may amount to a breach of Article 33, the principle of non-refoulement: “No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened.”

If Australia were to move to modernise the 1951 Convention, it ought to broaden rather than narrow the definition of refugee beyond “fear of persecution”.

Given the growing effects of global warming, there are refugees as a result of sinking islands in the Pacific.

There are internally displaced refugees in the face of natural disasters such as hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes. And of course there are refugees from war-torn countries such as Syria, regardless of their race, religion, regardless of whether they are a majority or minority, and regardless of their economic status.

Only then could the revision of the refugee convention be given a global perspective.

Posted on

US should leave Syria decision to UN

http://bit.ly/1dtVkvx

US should leave Syria decision to UN
30 August 2013
Herald Sun

THE narrative is etched: despotic dictator poisons his own people under the nose of the UN weapons inspectors.

This is credible if one inhales all the pollen from the Arab Spring stereotypes of mad men crushing their people who crave to be a Western democracy.

Like Egypt’s Mubarak and Libya’s Gaddafi, Syria’s Assad was supposed to topple like a domino weeks after the Syrian inferno was ignited in March 2011. Despite being bombarded from all borders with mercenaries, weapons and finances, the Syrian Government still stands almost 30 months later.

In fact, it has been gaining ground from its armed opposition and jihadists. So why would it suddenly be so stupid to commit an act that is both genocidal and suicidal?

The answer may be that the narrative is a naive narrative and we need to clear the smoke by asking the right questions.

First, if US intelligence services overheard a Syrian Defence Ministry official “in panicked phone calls with the leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike”, why is a translated transcript not shared as “undeniable” evidence of the culpability of the Government or any rogue offshoots?

Were the phone calls conceding culpability by the military, or panicking at the news of the horrendous attack on sleeping children? Such answers would protect the US from accusations of repeating the “weapons of mass destruction” pretext for another Iraq-style illegal invasion.
With the civil war in Iraq 10 years later, it is evident that the invasion has created everything but peace.

Second, given the indicators that opposition groups possess sarin nerve gas, why are the US and its allies adamant that only the Government’s forces can perpetrate this large-scale attack?

In May, UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria investigator Carla del Ponte announced that “according to testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas”. That same month, Turkish authorities seized sarin gas and other ammunition from Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaida, being smuggled into Syria.

In June, the Syrian military seized two barrels of sarin gas from rebels in Hama. Such announcements challenge the narrative about the goodies and the baddies.
Third, how could a Government that denies culpability prove what it ostensibly did not do?

Despite the charge of guilty until proven innocent, which does not apply in the West, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad claims he has presented relevant evidence to the 20-strong team of UN chemical weapons inspectors in Syria, led by Swedish expert Professor Ake Sellstrom.

Although this “jury” is still out, they have been dismissed by the US and its allies, who have already slammed down the gavel and returned their verdict: only the Government is guilty as all red lines have been crossed.

Of course, people cannot be blamed for believing the verdict about morality and humanity, as the Syrian public relations machine has never really deemed it necessary to articulate a credible case to the world.

Hence, the loudest voices prevail and Syria has only its own arrogance to blame.
Fourth, if Syrian soldiers “inhaled poisonous gas” and were hospitalised after they found stocks of chemicals and gas masks in tunnels near the targeted Ghouta district, why would the US and its allies oppose the UN inspectors establishing all facts?

Syrian UN ambassador Bashar Ja’afari wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon requesting that the team “investigate three heinous incidents” in the three days after last Wednesday’s attack. The UN team may reach a different verdict to that of the US.

What if they discover underground tunnels and a supply chain leading back to the multinational sponsors of this so-called “civil war”? Would the global focus shift from the “red lines” to the red faces of those who may have something to hide?

FIFTH, if US President wants the Syrian Government to receive only a “shot across the bow – it better not do it again”, could this self-appointed sheriff pour oil on fire? When a Syrian President has outlived all Western expectations, does treating him like a naughty boy really make sense?

It is likely the US President has put himself in a corner. This is the one-year anniversary of his promise to unleash his “contingency plans” if chemical weapons were utilised: “. . . a red line for us that would change my calculus.”

The red rag has been waved and he now has to charge, otherwise his pledge will evaporate into a hollow threat. Given Obama’s $250 million financial investment of “non-lethal weapons” to the Free Syrian Army, and its recent loss of ground as it competes for territory among a variety of jihadist groups, the desperation has intensified.

Obama needs to regain relevance in the Middle East post-Arab Spring. Jokes abound about backing the Islamists in Syria, but not in Egypt. Jokes abound about calling the Iraqi jihadists “insurgents” but the Syrian jihadists “rebels”. Jokes abound about the US arming terrorists while Syria fights them.

With Australia assuming the presidency of the UNSC in September, we have a historic opportunity to leverage a real “game-changer”.

Rather than relying on the smokescreens of secret intelligence, sabre rattling and counter threats, we could provide a civilised voice by moving to mandate the UN team to establish all the facts, above ground and underground, including culpability and supply chains.

Once guilt is established, the UNSC is in a better position to establish consensus and sanctions. This simple logic may smoke out what the hasty voices may be hiding.

Posted on

Christian Minorities an endangered species

http://bit.ly/12UGBmd

9 July 2013
ABC The Drum
CHRISTIAN MINORITIES AN ENDANGERED SPECIES

Emerging democracies in the ‘Arab Spring’ may have claimed an innocent casualty: Christian minorities.

If the crudest consequence of elections is ‘majority rules’, then minorities need protection. Westerners who laud the ‘Arab Spring’ cannot have it both ways, waving the carrot of democracy with one hand while waving a big stick with the other hand if Islamic values prevail. While a constitution may enshrine safeguards, this depends on who constitutes the majority.

As protestor Dalia Youssef declared from Tahrir Square after the recent en masse toppling of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, “the voice of the majority of people in any country is democracy.”

The consequences of ‘majority rules’ haunts the original Middle East Christians since the crucifixion itself. When Roman governor Pontius Pilate asked the assembled masses to choose between two prisoners, the majority ruled that Barabbas be released and Jesus be crucified. Despite the injustice and the manipulations, the man on the throne merely washed his hands and turned away. The besieged Christians of the Middle East fear that this history may be repeating itself.

Those who live in majority Muslim nations are facing unprecedented fear and exodus as their churches and clergy are attacked. As a Maronite Catholic who was born in Lebanon, it astounds me that the birthplace of Christianity and the indigenous descendants of the first Christians are not afforded better protection, compared with Saudi Arabia and Israel. I have even been asked “are there still Christians in the Middle East?” It would be a tragedy if this was no longer an ignorant question but a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The statistics are staggering: A century ago, one in five Arabs were Christian, whereas now they number one in 20.

The sectarian war in Iraq after the 2003 US-led invasion has halved the Christian population to less than 400,000.

In October 2006, Orthodox priest Fr Boulos Iskander was kidnapped, held to ransom, then beheaded in Mosul. Another 17 priests and 2 bishops have been kidnapped since then. The terror has culminated in the Al Qaeda-linked attack of Our Lady of Salvation Chaldean Catholic Church in Karrada in November 2010, killing more than 50 parishioners and two priests during a Sunday sermon. Iraqi Human Rights Minister Wijdan Michael declared that this attack was “an attempt to force Iraqi Christians to leave Iraq and to empty Iraq of Christians.”

In Egypt, Al Qiddissine (Two Saints) Coptic Church in Alexandria was attacked by suicide bombers as parishioners were leaving the midnight mass on January 1, 2011, killing 23 people. Another 13 Copts were killed in violent clashes after Shahedin Church was burnt south of Cairo in March 2011.
On September 30, 2011, the dome and bell of St George Coptic Church in Edfu were burnt to the ground. Hence, the 8 million Coptic Christians in Egypt have a litany of reasons to feel more vulnerable than ever in their own homeland.

The anti-Christian embers spread across the border to Libya, where a Coptic church was bombed near Misrata on December 30, 2012. Another Coptic church was attacked by armed Muslim militants in Benghazi on 28 February 2013.

In Syria, over 300,000 Christians have already fled in fear as foreign jihadists terrorise the ‘infidels’ in pursuit of a Salafist state. Saudi sheiks subsidise these salafists even though this US-ally has no churches to bomb as they are prohibited.

On April 22, 2013, two Orthodox bishops were kidnapped by armed men from Kafr Dael, a rebel-controlled area in Syria. Bishop Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syrian Orthodox Church and Bishop Boulos Yazigi, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, remain missing. During her first visit to Australia last October, peace activist Mother Agnes Mariam declared that that the foreign infiltration of Syria harbors a “a hidden will to empty the Middle East of its Christian presence.” The sectarian strife is now spilling over from Syria into Lebanon, where Christians are already a shrinking minority of about 34 per cent compared with the last census in 1932 when they constituted half the population.

In his timely book ‘Christianophobia’, British journalist Rupert Shortt highlighted the plight of Christian minorities in seven Muslim-majority countries. He warns that the eradication of Christians from their biblical heartland may be a ‘blind spot’ for those who are distracted by the ‘Arab Spring.’ He posits that their persecution is magnified by anti-Americanism and the false belief that Christianity is a ‘Western creed’

Indeed, Christian minorities may have become scapegoats and held to ransom for the ‘crusade’ declared by US president George W Bush during the ‘war on terror.’ Many of the anti-Christian attacks in Arab lands have been ‘justified’ as revenge for anti-Muslim attacks by Christians in the West, such as Florida pastor Terry Jones who burnt the Koran in 2011.

It is the height of arrogance to laud Arab societies for ‘importing’ western ideologies of democracy, when in fact the new generation of Arabs have their own aspirations and ideologies. Ironically, it is the importing of ideologies of theocracy from US-allied Gulf states that has hijacked the pro-democracy uprisings, but rarely registered on the Western radar. Indeed, it is these ideologies of sectarian supremacy, rather than Islam or Muslims per se, that pose the biggest threat of extinction to the indigenous Christians.

If the Christian Arabs were an endangered species of whales, there would be collective outrage, rescue efforts and intervention by the International Court of Justice.

Joseph established the Streetwork Project for exploited children in Adelaide in 1986, was appointed Victorian Multicultural Affairs Commissioner in 1991, and founded the Australian Arabic Council in 1992.

Posted on

Doubts raised over legitimacy of who speaks for Syrians

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/doubts-raised-over-legitimacy-of-who-speaks-for-syrians/story-e6frerdf-1226644735585

http://bit.ly/12eP1C9

Doubts raised over legitimacy of who speaks for Syrians
The Courier-Mail
May 17, 201312:00AM

A LOADED word that overarches the international war of weapons and war of words over Syria is “legitimacy”. Like “terrorist”, the word is a weapon and the definition is always relative to the user.

The Syrian National Council had always declared the Bashar al-Assad Government is an “illegitimate occupying militia”. The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces was endorsed as the “legitimate voice of the Syrian people” last December.

But recent news bulletins have raised serious legitimacy questions about the anti-Assad forces. This is a blow to the core group of Syrian citizens who sought genuine reform without violence but whose cause has long since been hijacked by non-Syrians.

The recent YouTube video of a rebel soldier from the “heroes of Bab Amr” vowing cannibalism against “you soldiers of Bashar the dog” drew instant condemnation from the National Coalition.
“Such an act contradicts the principles of the Free Syrian Army,” the Coalition said.

Sadly this is not the worst of the atrocities committed by pro and anti-Assad forces but this video has badly backfired and has delegitimised the rebels.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has now been described as a “propaganda front funded by the European Union” run by a “one man band” (Rami Abdulrahman) in Coventry in the UK. It is now regarded as reliable as the Syrian Government-run news agency, SANA.
Abdulrahman’s so-called monitoring agency has been oblivious to any stories that may delegitimise opposition to the Assad regime. For example, it has turned a blind eye to the call by Pope Francis for the release of two bishops from Kafr Dael, a rebel-controlled area in Syria. Both Bishop Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syrian Orthodox Church and Bishop Boulos Yaziji, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, were kidnapped by armed men on April 22.

Also ignored was the leader of al-Qa’ida groups operating in Syria, Abu Bakh al Baghdadi, recently revealing the opposition group, al-Nusra Front, was simply a branch of the Islamic state of Iraq. Ironically, al-Nusra is on the same side as the US Government (as in they are both opposed to the Assad regime), even though the US State Department declared it a terrorist organisation in December for trying to “hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purpose”.

This week, Today Tonight ran a series of stories revealing the intimidation, violence and police arrests of Syrian and Arab people in Australia who are divided by the nature of the Syrian conflict, those divisions also split along sectarian lines.
These stories showed how opposition to or support for the Assad regime among Syrians and other Arabs even living here can be of a violent nature.

There were red-faced leaders in America and elsewhere after the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria revealed it had “concrete suspicions” that rebel – anti-Government – forces had used sarin gas. This followed unfounded allegations, originally by the Israeli Government, that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons in the war.

With a peace conference now on the agenda, the US and UK have already started to qualify their language, referring to dealing only with the “moderate opposition” and finally conceding there is a “combustible mix” of opposition groups operating in Syria.

When peace activist Mother Agnes Miriam visited Australia in October, she was asked about her eyewitness experience of the Syrian opposition. Her answer, “Ayya mu’aarada?” (Which opposition?), raised many eyebrows as it did not fit in neatly with the “Arab Spring” template. She has sheltered many wounded mercenaries, negotiated the release of political prisoners, survived many death threats and practised what she preached, mussalaha (reconciliation). Mother Agnes has become a legitimate voice of peace in this international theatre of war and will visit Australia again next month.

In his recent meeting with the rebel leaders, US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford insisted that Assad “has lost his legitimacy and he must resign (and) the Syrians must create a new transitional government”.

What the US fails to realise is that it has lost its legitimacy as a peace broker, particularly given its $250 million pledge to opposition forces.

Posted on

Give up something meaningful for Lent

http://bit.ly/14LDQkt
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fast-and-loose–give-up-something-meaningful-for-lent-20130311-2fvm8.html?skin=text-only

Fast and loose – give up something meaningful for Lent
Published in Sunday Age, 10 March 2013

”WHAT I have given up for Lent” has become a fashion statement in some social circles. The announcement has been trumpeted so loudly, it may as well be tattooed on foreheads with pride in place of the ashes of penance. Indeed, it is written on the wall of many Facebook pages for all the friends to see.

Some of my ”faithful” flock mope pathetically about how they have given up their favourite luxury – chips, pizza, chocolate or caffeine. They appear to have forgotten that it is not what goes into their mouth that defiles them, but what comes out of it: pride, profanities, gossip.
As a child raised with Lebanese Christian traditions, spirituality and culture intersected and fused. Meat was the prescribed sacrifice during Lent, which was meaningless to me as I detested meat.

I should have been denied dairy products instead. Ironically, I looked forward to Lent because I much preferred the lentil soups than the mandatory meat anyway.

Many Christian faithful who celebrate Lent may need to be reminded of its origins. It is meant to be a time to enhance the relationship with their maker through private prayer, with their ”neighbour” through private almsgiving, and with themselves through some private sacrifice.
But before the faithful sacrifice alcohol, there are some sobering biblical reminders against pride and hypocrisy because ”God sees the unseen”. When you fast, wash your face and comb your hair so that only God notices, rather than look miserable and moan so that people pity you. When you give alms, do not sound a trumpet. And in praying, do it in secret.

Looks like some social sins persist after two millenniums. Indeed, bragging on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram about what you gave up for Lent is merely a modern manifestation of hypocrisy and reward seeking.

Herein lies the biggest difference between fasting privately for spiritual reasons and fasting publicly for social reasons. The former is tougher because it involves long-term faith that ”God will reward you later”, while the latter is tempting because it involves fulfilment from ”friends” and ”followers”.

For the ”fashion” fasters, it prompts the question – why sacrifice your favourite edibles if you undermine it with conceit and complaint? Are you point-scoring for this life now, or the next life?

Posted on

Prisoner X exposes double standards


http://bit.ly/132TaN7

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate
Posted Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Prisoner X exposes double standards

Imagine if Prisoner X was an Australian dual citizen who was recruited and incarcerated by the Syrian Mukhabarat rather than the Israeli Mossad. Would our Zionist leaders remain silent as they are now, or demand the loyalty of Syrian dual citizens? Should those driven by their ideology be labeled as fanatical terrorists or noble nationalists, or should this depend on whether they are Arabs or Jews?

Local Arab leaders are no strangers to having their loyalty questioned after two ‘Gulf Wars’, even if they are Australian rather than dual citizens.

I have publicly urged the Australian government to interrogate Australian citizens who visit the war zones of Syria, especially those who claim to be on a humanitarian mission but are then posted and boasted on the social boast as military martyrs sacrificing for their ‘brothers in arms’. Any military, para-military or intelligence service outside Australian defense and security forces should be deemed suspicious.

This does not mean that we should treat such citizens like the US Military Commission treated David Hicks who was charged with ‘providing material support for terrorism’. But it does mean that we cannot turn a blind eye to the human traffic and ‘rites of passage’ between Australia and Israel. Prisoner X now has a name – Ben Zygier, and this illicit recruitment of Australian citizens has a name – exploitation.

The indoctrination of Australian dual citizens into Israeli identity is nothing new. The aptly named Birthright Israel Foundation offers a free ten day educational tour of Israel for 18 to 26 year olds who are first time visitors. Its local representative is the Zionist Federation of Australia which has facilitated over 3300 Australian visits.

Their itinerary is founded on the ‘birthright of all young Jews to visit their ancestral homeland [to]…build a certain future for the Jewish people’. It has no place for education about uncertain future of the Palestinian people. Nor are visitors educated about the contradiction within their definition as both Zionist and ‘democratic’ given the many exclusive rights reserved for its Jewish citizens.

By their own admission, ‘more than 60,000 young Israelis, many of whom are active IDF soldiers, have traveled with the participants’.

The active conscription into the IDF deserves sharper focus in the light of their recent plan to ‘counter the steady decline in the number of conscripts since 2005’. This has been attributed to the drop in immigration by Diaspora Jews or Aliyah. According to Haaretz news, their recruitment drive targets a 15 percent increase from abroad such as Australia, plus a lethal combination of ultra-Orthodox youth and Arab Israelis.

We already had a wake-up call two years ago in Feb 2010 when a Hamas militant Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was assassinated in Dubai by Mossad agents with a forged Australian passport. Foreign Minister Stephen Smith warned the Israeli ambassador that this was not the ‘act of a friend’, and then expelled a Mossad agent.

This incident taught us that an ‘Australian passport allows Israeli spies to travel throughout the Middle East without attracting suspicion’. But during his recent interview with ABC radio, the president of the Zionist Federation of Australia Philip Chester vehemently denied that ‘when we send Australians to live in Israel …there’s an industry that exists of harvesting …passports in any … illegal way.’

The unanswered questions about Prisoner X go beyond the peculiarities of Ben Zygier. They go to the heart of the taboo question on dual citizenship that the Zionist President evaded: ‘At what point does loyalty to Israel become disloyalty to Australia?’

Just because Australia and Israel are allies in the Middle East does not mean that there will never be a conflict of interest. The ‘anti terrorist’ ends does not justify illegal means. What about differences in the United Nations such as Israel voting against the recent vote to upgrade Palestinian status whereas Australia abstained? What about the fact that Zionist recruitments into IDF are essentially a one state solution to ethnically cleanse the land of their ‘birthright’, whereas Australia supports a two state solution?

Our dual citizenship laws need to be clear about this loyalty question. Australians fighting for the ‘Free Syrian Army’ or answering fatwas for a holy war from muftis in Saudi Arabia should be interrogated, but we have no t heard of one arrest or criminal charge. And would Australian Syrians who are recruited to fight with the national army be just as culpable or is that different? How is it different to an Australian Israeli ‘serving’ in the occupied West Bank?

The Department of Foreign Affairs ‘Dual nationals ‘web page merely warns about the ‘liability for military service’ as a possible obligation, and the risk of imprisonment for defaulters. But this needs much greater elaboration, especially for countries which Australia regards as enemies.
Ironically, there has been gnashing of teeth over this one soul that we have never seen over the thousands of Palestinian men, women and children who are imprisoned, tortured and killed by the same Israeli apparatus.

Posted on

Shootings spike needs a face off

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=14674

ON LINE opinion – Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate

Shootings spike needs a face-off

By Joseph Wakim

Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Our current political debate about shootings has taken aim at the supply chain, but we should be disarming the demand.

The new federal offence of ‘aggravated trafficking’ would prosecute anyone smuggling more than 50 firearms within a six month period. But NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell insists that this firearm smuggling threshold should be halved, in the light of the recent spike of gun fatalities in Sydney’s West.

A voice at arm’s length to the crime culture has warned about a troubling trend to ‘fix’ disputes by hiding behind weapons. NSW Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas identified this demand for long range weapons: ‘it seems to be more acceptable now for people to get a weapon and go out and shoot them instead of having a physical altercation’.

It is this worrying trend to confront enemies from way beyond arm’s length that needs to be arrested.
When one sends a message through bullets in the anonymity of darkness, it is loud but it is not clear.
There is no face to face contact, no reading of non verbal cues such as tone or pitch, no opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, no context to the conversation, and no exposure to the human consequences on the victims and their family. All these human dynamics and cues are blocked out in the blackness.

The trend raised by Commissioner Kaldas evokes the old adage that it is harder to stab a man than it is to shoot him. The ‘physical altercation’ requires you to be up close and personal, to see the reaction as the knife enters, to see the pain in their eyes, to see the window to their soul and to see your victim as a fellow human. It is no wonder that the trend is to attack from a distance.

But this trend is not peculiar to thugs and was not born in a vacuum. The trend to hide behind shields and indeed shield ourselves from the human consequences is a huge temptation for a generation of screen-agers who ‘think with their thumbs’ as they send messages through a plethora of social media platforms such as Facebook, SMS messaging and Instagram.

The more they become well versed and reliant on the social media as their primary source of communication, the more averse they are to face to face communication. The more they rely on digital communication, which is fundamentally zeros and ones, the more they are prone to ‘non-verbal’ Asperger symptoms.

When relationships turn nasty, the (anti) social networks can be transformed into barricades and battle trenches. The ‘SEND’ button is transformed into a rocket launcher in a computer game where the targets are either not human or dehumanized. The message is transformed into a missile. They fail to face their ‘friend’ as they give a modern meaning to ‘behind their back’.

The dehumanisation and consequential disconnect increases the propensity for angry individuals who hide behind the send button to later hide behind triggers.

Ironically, the message intended by the drive by shootings is ‘I have the power to terrorise you’, but the action is everything but courageous. The faceless and nameless cowards may intend to silence their targets with fear and fire. But inevitably the result is spiralling counter attacks within a criminal culture that lacks social skills to strip off the armour and physically face the foe. Contrary to the glorified and sexed up dramatisations we see in the popular culture such as the Underbelly genre, such figures should be depicted as cowards to prevent copycat behaviour.

The demand for stocking up on weapons rather than stocking up on social skills poses urgent moral challenges if we are to curb the spike of shootings. The antidote to an over-exposure to hiding behind screens and using pseudonyms may be relearning the art of non-verbal communication, reading body language and listening skills.

It is ironic that the Simon and Garfunkel classic Sound of Silence was written 50 years ago in the aftermath of the John F Kennedy shooting, and it features the prophetic lyrics that characterise a mob mentality – ‘People hearing without listening’.

The computer screens and windscreens can create a culture of cowards who need to be taught something so fundamental to humans – face to face communication. Even in my workplace, people can be so aggressive on email, so gentle over the phone, and so shy over a coffee, as if they are out of their comfort zone.

It is time to arrest this anti-social trend because we can now see the context and the continuum from the toxic Send button to the tragic trigger.

Joseph Wakim founded the Australian Arabic Council and is a former multicultural affairs commissioner.

Posted on

The Pope is not a CEO

http://newmatilda.com/2013/02/15/pope-not-ceo

The Pope Is Not A CEO

The Pope’s retirement, which in secular logic might look like a CEO stepping down, is a wise decision in the tradition of Saint Peter himself, argues Maronite Catholic Joseph Wakim

Joseph Ratzinger has been hailed for his humility in reminding us all of his human frailty. But his retirement message should not be misconstrued as reducing the Papacy to CEO status.

In public discourse, the secular logic is seductive:

Bravo to the man who finally concedes that this colossal job of being the shepherd over 1.3 billion Catholics belongs to a younger candidate “due to an advanced age”. It is absurd that this “top job” be offered to a person aged 78, which is 13 years after most men retire.

When popes are so old, they are naturally old fashioned. By his own admission, Pope Benedict XVI shaped a new job description that this person must “govern … in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes”, requiring “strength of mind and body”.

This sets a positive papal precedent that the position is for a limited tenure, pending regular “fitness” checks, just like any other senior post. It is no longer a life sentence, but a human job like any CEO that has finally come home to the fold.

Age does not always equate to ability — we have seen leaders such as John Howard, who was still prime minister at age 68, outpace much younger leaders who had run out of puff. It is also flawed logic to assume that conservatism increases with age.

The papacy is not a job, it is Petrine — a succession to the apostle Peter. In his brief retirement speech, Benedict refers to Saint Peter on three occasions. To “govern the bark of Saint Peter” and the “See of Saint Peter” may indeed be a hard act to follow.

This is an apt coincidence; Peter denied knowing his master Jesus three times after the arrest, but then affirmed his love for Jesus three times after the resurrection by way of reconciliation.

Popes wear the Fisherman’s Ring as a reminder of Peter’s profession before following Jesus. As the “fisher of men”, the Pope casts nets to catch people and bring them to the Gospel. CEOs may be expected to market and grow the “followers” of their company, but not to convert people to a death defying faith.

Peter was far from perfect and renowned for his weaknesses. He failed to stay awake when his master agonised alone before being arrested. He failed to stand by his master during the persecution, trial and crucifixion.

Given this cowardly character, Popes should not be afraid to face their own failings in the shadow of their first forefather. However, CEOs displaying such disloyalty are normally dismissed or disciplined, not given an opportunity for forgiveness and salvation like Peter.

Peter was anointed for his honesty and his rock solid faith when Jesus announced “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. CEOs are given a limited tenure with regular reviews depending on their ability to achieve key performance indicators. They are not given eternal shares in the company and promises of a place in paradise.

Peter was the first apostle to perform a miracle after the resurrection. After devoting the rest of his life to preaching and converting, and casting his new net out far and wide, Peter was imprisoned, persecuted and crucified upside down because he was “not worthy” to die like his master. CEOs are normally protected and indemnified by Pty Ltd status and cannot normally be personally prosecuted.

This does not mean that the Petrine Ministry and the Via Dolorosa (the way of suffering) needs to be taken literally by popes like stations of the cross. But it does mean that the job description of the “papal primacy” must honor the “apostolic primacy” of Peter.

Popes do not need to be persecuted, imprisoned or crucified. But they do need to rise above the mortal call of duty, and step aside when they morally feel that what they can offer is “not worthy” of the Petrine Ministry. As Pope Benedict put it: “my strengths … are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry”. Like Peter who self censored himself for his weaknesses, Benedict also humbled himself to “ask pardon for all my defects”.

So before we strip down the Papacy to a modern day CEO, this needs to be juxtaposed against the modern meaning of a Petrine Ministry. It cannot be compared with a CEO, president or monarch.

Pope Benedict is not pathing the way for a more tenuous papal seat. Instead, he is actually fulfilling and following the way of Peter.

Posted on

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer

Job applicants without correct creed don’t have a prayer
Published: February 2, Canberra Times

This story was found at: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/job-applicants-without-correct-creed-dont-have-a-prayer-20130201-2dpyi.html

It is ironic that our moral pillars are defending their right to lawful discrimination, when they should ostensibly be crusading against this. Church-based groups insist that while they are not above the law, their fundamental right to freedom of religion trumps the right to freedom from discrimination.

The irony is richer when one looks at the submissions made a year ago in the lead-up to the Consolidated Human Rights and Anti Discrimination Bill that is currently before the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee.

When submissions were called by federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon in September 2011, she gave pre-emptive reassurances that ”religious exemptions will continue as under the current scheme”. These untouchable aspects that will not change deserve as much scrutiny as the ”protected attributes” that will change, such as sexual orientation and gender identity.

A total of 230 submissions were posted on the Attorney-General’s website, mostly from individuals. Virtually all the faith-based submissions were from churches, with none from the other major faiths. Responding to questions 20 to 22 in the discussion paper regarding these religious exemptions, these 17 church ”corporations” sang from same hymn sheet, virtually verbatim.

The first verse is led by Churches Commission on Education (YouthCARE) and anchored to Article 6(b) of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief (1981) ”to establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions”. This is now interpreted broadly as the right to practise religion ”corporately”, which means that ”some roles … are entitled to include a requirement of acceptance and practise of a specified religious faith” and to ”shape organisational advertisements and job descriptions … to include certain religious dimensions”.

When I was interviewed for social work roles in faith-based corporations, a personal commitment to their ”doctrines, tenets and beliefs” did not need to be stipulated as an ”inherently” desirable attribute in their selection criteria – it was common sense. And when I was interviewing candidates in such corporations, a person of a different creed who wished to embrace our faith was welcomed. Their professional credentials trumped their personal creed. Indeed, a robust and respectful debate about the teachings of the church is encouraged in my children’s Catholic school, not grounds for refusal or dismissal.

The Australian Baptist Ministries led the next verse by vowing that ”rules pertaining to the employment of staff by a religious organisation ought to be considered on similar grounds as employment of staff by a political organisation”. This is a self defeating argument because greens or gun lobbies are not exempted from the discrimination laws and do not insist on the right to select candidates of their own colour to prevent being tainted.

The next verse rejects the language of exceptions or exemption because the ”right to religious freedom … should be seen as a fully fledged right in itself”, identical wording used by both YouthCARE and Anglicare submissions.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference adds weight by insisting that religious freedom is a ”fundamental human right that government is obliged to protect”. This is akin to arguing that we should never open this door because it has always been that way.

The chorus was a covenant cited by virtually all the faithful voices: Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966) which enshrines the right of religion ”in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [sic] religion or belief in worship, observance, practise and teaching”. However, article 18(3) adds that this freedom ”may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect … the fundamental rights and freedom of others”.

This negation of the religious freedom trump card is challenged by the YouthCARE submission which argues that ”in situations where there is a conflict of rights, a specific right of persons to practise their religious beliefs … prevails over a general right of persons not to be discriminated against on the ground of religion”. Indeed, it is an existential threat – ”Without this requirement, we cannot maintain our character as a Christian organisation or carry out our mission”.

The haunting hymn culminates with scaremongering by Christian Schools Australia about an atheist nation where ”freedom of religion may effectively become freedom from religion”.

But are these old arguments red herrings? Where is the research which verifies how often these discrimination exemptions have been invoked? How many non-believers would apply for such jobs if the exemptions were lifted?

The exposure draft of this consolidated bill was issued in November last year and adopts the spirit of this hymn. Section 33 states that it is ”not unlawful” for religious bodies to discriminate ”in good faith, and conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion, or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion”.

Conjuring old covenants, declarations and ”traditions going back centuries” are not contemporary or compelling arguments to counter the ”public money means public liability” paradigm. Surely the royal commission into institutional responses to child abuse has heralded a new era to rethink old ways and open the church doors, not close them.

The hymn should sing something more akin to biblical covenants than man-made covenants: even if we are immune from the law, we will not discriminate any more. We have nothing to hide and will have nothing to fear.

Joseph Wakim is a former multicultural affairs commissioner and a founder of the Australian Arabic Council.